DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Harris, 590 N.W.2d 90.

495 citing documents.

  • State v. Stephenson 760 N.W.2d 22 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Kail 760 N.W.2d 16 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Stephenson 760 N.W.2d 22 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Baumann 759 N.W.2d 237 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Baumann 759 N.W.2d 237 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
    For challenged pretrial orders on motions to suppress evidence, we “independently review the facts and determine, as a matter of law, whether the district court erred in suppressing — or not suppressing — the evidence.”
  • State v. Holiday 749 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Holiday 749 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
    ANALYSIS “When reviewing pretrial orders on motions to suppress evidence, we may independently review the facts and determine, as a matter of law, whether the district court erred in suppressing — or not suppressing — the evidence.”
  • State v. Morales-Mulato 744 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Morales-Mulato 744 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
    “When reviewing pretrial orders on motions to suppress evidence, we may independently review the facts and determine, as a matter of law, whether the district court erred in suppressing — or not suppressing — the evidence.”
  • State v. Shriner 739 N.W.2d 432 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • State v. Shriner 739 N.W.2d 432 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • State v. Vonderharr 733 N.W.2d 847 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • State v. Vonderharr 733 N.W.2d 847 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
    “When reviewing pretrial orders on motions to suppress evidence, we may independently review the facts and determine, as a matter of law, whether the district court erred in suppressing — or not suppressing — the evidence.”
  • State v. Flowers 734 N.W.2d 239 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Flowers 734 N.W.2d 239 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Morin 736 N.W.2d 691 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • State v. Morin 736 N.W.2d 691 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • In Re the Welfare of J.W.L. 732 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • In Re the Welfare of J.W.L. 732 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
    ANALYSIS “When reviewing pretrial orders on motions to suppress evidence, we may independently review the facts and determine, as a matter of law, whether the district court erred in suppressing — or not suppressing — the evidence.”
  • Overvig v. Commissioner of Public Safety 730 N.W.2d 789 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • Overvig v. Commissioner of Public Safety 730 N.W.2d 789 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
    When the facts are not in dispute we “must determine whether a police officer’s actions constitute a seizure and if the officer articulated an adequate basis for the seizure.”
  • State v. Jordan 726 N.W.2d 534 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • State v. Jordan 726 N.W.2d 534 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
    ANALYSIS “When reviewing pretrial orders on motions to suppress evidence, we independently review the facts and determine, as a matter of law, whether the district court erred in its ruling.” ().
  • State v. Timberlake 726 N.W.2d 509 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • State v. Timberlake 726 N.W.2d 509 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • State v. Melde 725 N.W.2d 99 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Melde 725 N.W.2d 99 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Clark 722 N.W.2d 460 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Clark 722 N.W.2d 460 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Anderson 720 N.W.2d 854 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. Anderson 720 N.W.2d 854 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
    “When reviewing pretrial orders on motions to suppress evidence, we may independently review the facts and determine, as a matter of law, whether the district court erred in suppressing — or not suppressing — the evidence.”
  • State v. Polsfuss 720 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. Polsfuss 720 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
    ‘When reviewing pretrial orders on motions to suppress evidence, we may independently review the facts and determine, as a matter of law, whether the district court erred in suppressing — or not suppressing — the evidence.”
  • State v. Bourke 718 N.W.2d 922 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Bourke 718 N.W.2d 922 Minn. 2006
  • In Re the Welfare of M.A.R. 718 N.W.2d 480 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • In Re the Welfare of M.A.R. 718 N.W.2d 480 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • In Re the Welfare of T.L.S. 713 N.W.2d 877 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • In Re the Welfare of T.L.S. 713 N.W.2d 877 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
    407, 416 , 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963) (explaining that “evidence seized during an unlawful search [ean]not constitute proof against the victim of the search”)
  • State v. Davis 711 N.W.2d 841 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. Davis 711 N.W.2d 841 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
    When reviewing pretrial orders on motions to suppress evidence, appellate *845 courts “independently review the facts and determine, as a matter of law, whether the district court erred in suppressing — or not suppressing — the evidence.”
  • Deegan v. State 711 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 2006
  • Deegan v. State 711 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 2006
    As a general rule we favor uniformity with the federal constitution, but our state constitution may in some narrow circumstances provide greater protection for individual rights based on “language, concerns, and traditions unique to Minnesota.” (-98 (Minn.1999)).
  • State v. Kouba 709 N.W.2d 299 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. Kouba 709 N.W.2d 299 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. Raines 709 N.W.2d 273 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. Raines 709 N.W.2d 273 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
    ANALYSIS I. Rule 36 violations When reviewing pretrial orders regarding suppression motions, an appellate court “may independently review the facts and determine, as a matter of law, whether the district court erred in suppressing — or not suppressing — the evidence.”
  • State v. Adkins 706 N.W.2d 59 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Adkins 706 N.W.2d 59 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • Kahn v. Griffin 701 N.W.2d 815 Minn. 2005